- Author:
- Robin Cohen
This thesis proposes a model for an argument understanding system--a natural language understanding system which processes arguments. The form of input considered is one-way communication in a conversational setting, where the speaker tries to convince the hearer of a particular point of view. The main contributions are: (i) a theory of expected coherent structure which limits analysis to the reconstruction of particular transmission forms (ii) a theory of linguistic clues which assigns a functional interpretation to special words and phrases used by the speaker to indicate structure (iii) a theory of evidence relationships which includes the demand for pragmatic analysis to accommodate beliefs not currently held. A system designed to incorporate these theories could be used to analyze the structure of arguments--the necessary first step for a hearer, before judging credibility and responding.
Cited By
- Hirschberg J Putting speech in speech acts Proceedings of the 1987 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing, (88-94)
- Cohen R (1987). Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse, Computational Linguistics, 13:1-2, (11-24), Online publication date: 1-Jan-1987.
- Hirschberg J and Pierrehumbert J The intonational structuring of discourse Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, (136-144)
- Litman D Linguistic coherence Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, (215-223)
- Humphrey S and Krovetz B (1984). Selected AI-related dissertations, ACM SIGART Bulletin:90, (53-55), Online publication date: 1-Oct-1984.
- Cohen R A computational theory of the function of clue words in argument understanding Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, (251-258)
Recommendations
Real arguments are approximate arguments
AAAI'07: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an ...
Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments
AAAI'08: Proceedings of the 23rd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1Formal approaches to modelling argumentation provide ways to present arguments and counterarguments, and to evaluate which arguments are, in a formal sense, warranted. While these proposals allow for evaluating object-level arguments and ...
Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation
CaSAPI (Credulous and Skeptical Argumentation: Prolog Implementation) 3.0 determines the acceptability of claims, using the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces ...